Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01 (was: Re: Consensus call on adopting:....)

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 14 Apr 2012, at 01:36, Karl Auer wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:29 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Additionally, I'd argue that in order to have such thing, then
>> 1) You'd need to manually configure your address each time you move from
>> one network to another (as with manual configuration requires you to set
>> the whole address, rather than just the IID bits), or,
> 
> No - you could just have a flag that says "the key is the interface
> identifier I want to use - verbatim". Then that IID gets appended to
> whatever prefix happens along. Obviously this does NOT have the same
> anti-tracking qualities etc, but I can see it being useful. It's
> basically a variation on static addresses that allows portability
> between networks without having to reconfigure the host. Just as with
> other forms of static addressing, it is absolutely the administrator's
> problem to avoid conflicts.

I while ago I put this one forward, which is an alternative to Fernando's suggestion that you have to set the whole address:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-6man-tokenised-ipv6-identifiers-00

This was based on existing implementations, in Solaris and Linux (as a demonstrator), with the potential for simpler renumbering in mind. It's probably the complete antithesis of what Fernando is trying to achieve, but is aimed at the type of (server) systems that would probably be DNS-advertised anyway. 

Tim